Laboratory compaction study of fly ash mixed with lime precipitated electroplating waste sludge

IJRET: International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology eISSN: 2319-1163 | pISSN: 2321-7308
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Volume: 03 Issue: 10 | Oct-2014, Available @ http://www.ijret.org 125
LABORATORY COMPACTION STUDY OF FLY ASH MIXED WITH
LIME PRECIPITATED ELECTROPLATING WASTE SLUDGE
Malik Shoeb Ahmad1
1
Associate Professor, Z.H. College of Engineering and Technology, Department of Civil Engineering, Aligarh Muslim
University, Aligarh, India
Abstract
This study aims at to utilize two industrial wastes like fly ash and electroplating waste sludge in various geotechnical and
highway engineering applications such as filling of embankments, construction of highways, replacement of poor soil etc., by
conducting laboratory modified compaction tests on plain fly ash (control specimen) and fly ash mixed with lime precipitated
electroplating waste sludge. The lime precipitated waste sludge was mixed with fly ash from 5 to 60% with an increment of
5% by weight of fly ash. The combinations of each mixture were investigated in this study in order to evaluate the maximum
dry density and optimum moisture content of the mix by modified Proctor compaction tests. The effects of fresh and remoulded
samples, waste sludge and compactive effort on compaction properties of fly ash and fly ash-waste sludge mixes were also
investigated in the present study. On the basis of modified compaction tests, the effective percentages of waste sludge were
found between 30%–45% by weight of fly ash. Therefore, for practical consideration the results of 70%–55% fly ash and
30%–45% lime precipitated electroplating waste sludge have been considered in this study.
Keywords: Fly ash; Lime Precipitated Electroplating Waste Sludge; Geotechnical and Highway Engineering;
Modified Proctor Compaction Test; Compactive Effort
--------------------------------------------------------------------***-----------------------------------------------------------------
1. INTRODUCTION
Rapid industrialization has resulted in environmental
pollution of gigantic proportions. The power generation in
India through thermal power plants has resulted in the
massive production of fly ash, whose disposal has been a
challenging task. The present day utilization of fly ash in
India is at its infancy, and only an insignificant amount is
being put to proper use. Unless efforts of this nature are
taken, the menace of fly ash will have disastrous effects on
the ecology and environment. Fly ash is reported to cause
ailments like allergic bronchitis, silicosis, and asthma.
Besides, fly ash contaminates surface water and may also
have an effect on underground water due to the presence of
heavy metals like lead and arsenic. Besides that one of the
major hazardous waste generating industries is the
electroplating industry [1]. As the restrictions on landfilling
become stronger and wastes were banned from land
disposal, stabilization (S/S) of these wastes could potentially
play an important role in making them acceptable for land
disposal [2]. This has attracted the attention of many
researchers to stabilize the waste sludge containing heavy
metals using fly ash and cement [3-9]. On the other hand
government has imposed ban on procuring agricultural soil
which was earlier used for filling of embankment, plinth and
construction of highways subgrade. In order to open up the
possibilities, of using alternative materials in place of soil
the present study was carried out by using fly ash and fly
ash mixed with lime precipitated waste sludge for partial or
full replacement of soil. The performance of these mixes
depends upon the compaction or densification of the fill.
Proper compaction is therefore, critical to the performance
of fly ash and fly ash–waste sludge fills. The maximum
dry density (MDD) and optimum moisture content (OMC)
obtained by Proctor compaction tests becomes the
benchmark for determining the quality of compaction. The
dry density of fill is of primary importance, since it is the
major determinant of strength and compressibility of the
fills [10].
The engineering properties of fly ash are varying widely
with the fresh and remoulded samples because they depend
upon origin, type of coal, combustion process and
collection methods. Studies on compaction properties of
soils and fly ash reported in the literatures [11-18].
However, the compaction studies on fresh and remoulded
samples of fly ash and electroplating waste are very few
[19-20]. The present investigation is meant to utilize the
fly ash and electroplating waste sludge for highway and
geotechnical applications, by conducting modified
Proctor tests on plain fly ash and fly ash mixed with lime
precipitated electroplating waste. The waste sludge was
added to fly ash from 5 to 60% with an increment of 5%
by weight of fly ash. The literature suggests that the use
of fresh/remolded samples for each compaction and
preconditioning period can make significant difference in
the MDD and OMC values. However, no uniform
procedure appears to have been adopted in practice.
Therefore, an attempt has been made to investigate the
effect of these parameters on MDD and OMC of
Harduaganj fly ash and fly ash mixed with waste sludge.

_______________________________________________________________________________________
2. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMME
2.1 Materials
In this study, the materials used are:
(i) Fly ash (FA)
(ii) Electroplating Waste Sludge (S)
(iii) Lime
2.1.1 Fly Ash
Fly ash was procured from Harduaganj thermal power plant
located at 16 km from Aligarh City, Uttar Pradesh, India.
For the present investigation, dry fly ash from hoppers is
collected in polythene bags.
Physical Properties of Fly Ash
The physical properties fly ash is shown in Table–1. The
fly ash used in the present study can be classified as ML (silt
of low compressibility).
Table–1: Physical Properties of Fly ash
S. No. Constituent/Property Value
1. Colour Grey
2. Percent Finer 96%
3.
Maximum dry density (MDD) –
Modified Test
10.80 kN/m3
4.
Optimum moisture content
(OMC)
26.5%
5. Specific gravity 2.10 at 27o
C
6. Specific Surface area 3190 cm3
/g
Chemical Composition of Fly Ash
The chemical composition of fly ash is shown in Table-2.
Figure 1 shows the scanning electron micrographs (SEM) of
fly ash. The micrographic observation of fly ash indicates the
presence of spherical particles in abundance, sub rounded
porous grains, irregular agglomerates, opaque spheres and
irregular porous grains of unburned carbon.
Table–2: Chemical Composition of Fly ash
Constituent/Property Value (%)
SiO2 61.0
Al2O3 20.0
Fe2O3 9.0
CaO 2.0
MgO 1.4
SO3 0.40
Fig. 1: Scanning Electron Micrograph of Fly ash
2.1.2 Electroplating Waste Sludge
The electroplating waste sludge for the present study was
collected from local plating industries where Ni and Zn
plating was done. The plating waste collected for the study
comprises of solid refuge which was collected from the
bottom of the plating tank. The solid waste includes
chemicals, heavy metals and metallic dust. Heavy metal
analysis was carried out using GBC-902 atomic absorption
spectrophotometer (AAS). The AAS observation shows that
the quantity of heavy metals in the electroplating waste
sludge was extremely high as shown in Table–4. The
electroplating sludge was initially mixed with 10% lime for
precipitation of heavy metals. The morphology of the lime
precipitated waste sludge was obtained by SEM analysis as
shown in Fig. 2.
Physical Properties of Electroplating Waste Sludge
The chemical composition of electroplating waste sludge is
shown in Table–3.
Table–3: Chemical Composition of Electroplating Waste
Sludge
Constituent/Property Value
Total Solids 119276mg/l
Total dissolved solids 5012 mg/l
Total suspended solids 95643mg/l
Specific gravity 1.12
pH 2.03
Heavy Metal Composition of Electroplating Waste
Sludge
The heavy metal concentration in electroplating waste
sludge is shown in Table–4.

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Table–4: Heavy Metal Concentration in Electroplating
Waste Sludge
Metals Concentration
(mg/l or ppm)
Nickel 813
Chromium 500
Zinc 1000
Cadmium 010
Lead 003
Fig. 2: Scanning Electron Micrograph (SEM) of Lime
Precipitated Waste sludge
Lime
The finely powered white coloured lime was used as
precipitator having the chemical composition given in
Table–5.
Table–5: Chemical Composition of Lime
Constituent Properties Value
Assay 98%
Chloride 0.01%
Sulphate 0.2%
Aluminium, iron and insoluble matters 1.0%
Arsenic Traces
Lead Traces
2.2 Preparation and Testing of Specimens
All the specimens tested were prepared by mixing the
relevant quantities of fly ash, lime precipitated
electroplating waste sludge, and water, according to the
mixture proportions. The material was thoroughly mixed to
achieve uniform mixing of water. The wet mix was then tested
as (i) fresh samples (new samples are used for each test
point) (ii) remoulded samples (the same samples were
remoulded and reused every time. Modified Proctor
compaction tests were carried out using the equipment and
procedure as specified in IS: 2720 (Part-8) [21] equivalent to
ASTM D 1557 [22]. However, standard Proctor compaction
tests were also conducted on some selected specimens for
studying the effect of compaction energy on fly ash and mix.
The standard Proctor tests were conducted as per the
procedure specified in IS: 2720 (Part-7) [23] equivalent to
ASTM D 698[24]. Three replicate tests were carried out for
each condition. The details of the test conditions are given in
Table–6.
Table–6: Details of Test Conditions
S. No. Mix Standard
Proctor Tests
Modified Proctor Tests
Preconditioning
Period
Fresh/
Remolded
1. Fly ash(FA)
Fresh Samples
0, 1, 16, 24 hr Both
2. 70%FA+30%S 0, 1, 16, 24 hr Both
3. 65%FA+35%S 0, 1, 16, 24 hr Both
4. 60%FA+40%S 0, 1, 16, 24 hr Both
5. 55%FA+45%S 0, 1, 16, 24 hr Both
6. 50%FA+50%S 0, 1, 16, 24 hr Both

_______________________________________________________________________________________
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The result of Proctor tests conducted on fly ash and fly ash–
waste sludge blends are presented and discussed to bring out the
effect of various factors on compaction parameters.
3.1 Influence of Compactive Effort
Standard and modified Proctor compaction tests were
conducted on fly ash and fly ash–waste sludge blend to
study the effect of compaction energy. Typical compaction
curves of plain fly ash and most effective mix
55%FA+45%S are shown in Figs. 3 & 4. A compilation of
few reported data pertaining to soils and fly ash on the effect
of compaction energy on MDD and OMC values are also
presented in Table–7. It has been observed that the increase
in compaction effort has resulted in 16.12% increase in
MDD and 4% decrease in OMC values of fly ash with
respect to standard Proctor test. While out of various
combination of fly ash–waste sludge blend the most
significant mix was found to be 55%FA+45%S. The effect
of compaction energy can also be seen in case of this mix.
The increase in MDD value w.r.t. standard Proctor tests is
about 14.23% whereas, the decrement in OMC value is
observed as 6.5%.The data presented in Table–7 show that
the results of the present investigations on Harduaganj
fly ash and fly ash-waste sludge mixes are in conformity
with those observed for soils and fly ashes obtained from
other sources.
Fig. 3: Effect of Compaction Energy on Compaction Properties of Fly ash (Fresh)
Fig. 4: Effect of Compaction Energy on Compaction Properties of 55%FA+45%S (Fresh)
7
8
9
10
11
12
9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37
DryDensity(kN/m3)
Moisture Content (%)
Standard Proctor Test Modified Proctor Test
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
DryDensity(kN/m3)
Standard Proctor Test Modified Proctor Test

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Table–7: The Influence of Compactive Effort on the MDD and OMC of Soil, Fly ash and Fly ash-Waste Sludge
Type of Material MDD (kN/m3
) OMC (%)
Standard
Proctor
Modified
Proctor
%Variation
w.r.t.
Standard
Standard
Proctor
Modified
Proctor
%Variation
w.r.t.
Standard
Toth et al. [25]
Heavy Clay 15.84 19.10 20.58 28.00 18.00 –35.71
Silty Clay 16.98 19.76 16.37 21.00 12.00 –42.85
Sandy Clay 18.78 20.90 11.29 14.00 11.00 –21.43
Sand 19.76 21.22 07.39 11.00 09.00 –18.18
Gravel–sand–clay mix 21.07 22.37 06.17 09.00 08.00 –11.11
Fly ash (Lambton G.S) 11.69 12.64 08.13 36.00 26.00 –27.77
Bottom Ash (Lambton
G.S)
10.24 16.31 59.28 28.00 17.00 –39.29
Bottom Ash
(Lakeview G.S)
13.00 16.32 25.54 29.00 18.00 –37.23
Martin et al. [26]
Bottom Ash
10.50 11.60 8.57 28.00 25.00 –11.40
Santayana and Mazo [27]
Fly ash (Los Barrios CCS) 10.90 11.80 8.26 38.00 32.00 –15.78
Fly ash (Los Barrios CCE) 12.80 13.70 7.03 27.00 22.00 –18.52
Fly ash (Los Barrios CM) 12.50 13.60 8.80 27.50 22.50 –18.18
Fly ash (Puertollano) 12.50 13.10 4.80 22.00 19.30 –12.27
Fly ash (Lada CCF) 12.00 12.50 4.17 27.70 24.10 –13.00
Fly ash (Lada CCF) 15.00 15.30 2.10 17.50 17.40 –00.60
Ramasamy and Pusadkar [20]
Dadri Fly ash 12.96 13.85 06.86 19.63 18.47 –05.91
Dadri Bottom ash 08.84 10.31 16.63 47.17 35.07 –25.65
Present Study-Harduaganj Fly ash (2014)
Fly ash(FA) 09.30 10.80 16.12 27.50 26.50 –04.00
70%FA+30%S 11.50 12.50 09.00 27.00 25.00 –07.40
65%FA+35%S 12.06 12.90 07.00 26.50 24.00 –9.40
60%FA+40%S 12.40 13.50 08.80 23.00 24.20 –05.20
55%FA+45%S 13.00 14.85 14.23 24.50 23.00 –06.50
50%FA+50%S 12.65 13.20 04.30 25.00 24.00 –04.00
3.2 Effect of Waste Sludge
The effect of waste sludge on compaction of fly ash is
shown in Fig. 5. It has been envisaged from the Fig. 5 that
the values of MDD are significantly increasing with addition
of waste sludge to the fly ash. It may also be observed that
the most significant waste sludge percentage is between
35% to 45% by weight of fly ash. The percent increase in
MDD values w.r.t. plain fly ash is observed as 37.5% for
55%FA+45%S mix. However, on increasing the waste
sludge beyond 45%, the maximum dry density of fly ash–
waste sludge blend decreases and optimum moisture content
increases. This may be attributed to the presence of excess
amount lime in the mix, which reacts quickly with the fly
ash and brings changes in base exchange aggregation and
flocculation, resulting in increased void ratio of the mix
leading to a decreased density of the mix. On the other hand
it has also been observed that the mix containing high
percentage of fly ash may possess low value of MDD and
high value of OMC. This might be due to the dominance of
fly ash which is having a relatively low specific gravity
results in reduced MDD value. The increase in optimum
moisture content can be attributed towards the increasing
amount of fines which require more water content due to
increased surface areas.

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Fig. 5: Effect of Waste Sludge on MDD of Fly ash for Fresh Sample (Modified Proctor Test)
3.3 Influence of Fresh and Remoulded Samples
Some typical results of modified Proctor compaction tests
obtained for fly ash and fly ash–waste sludge blends are
presented in Table–8 and Figs. 6 to 13. The results show that
the use of remoulded sample increases the value of MDD
and decreases the value of OMC of fly ash and fly ash–
waste sludge blend. This may be attributed to crushing of
ash grains due to repeated compaction of the sample as
well as enhanced lubrication mechanism due to uniform
distribution of moisture in the fly ash–waste sludge blend.
It may also be observed that the increase in the MDD of
remoulded samples of fly ash–waste sludge blend is more
significant than fly ash. The percent increase in MDD
values of remoulded samples with respect to fresh samples
are 9.30% for fly ash, 10.4% for 70%FA+30%S and 19%,
17%, 8.5% & 5% for 65%FA+35%S, 60%FA+40%S,
55%FA+45%S and 50%FA+50%S mixes respectively.
This indicates that the delay in mixing and laying of the
mix at site may not cause decrease in the MDD values.
However, the use of fresh samples would simulate the field
condition more closely, the procedure of using fresh
samples may be adopted for carrying out compaction tests
on fly ash, fly ash–waste sludge blend.
Table–8: Effect of Fresh/Remoulded Samples on MDD and OMC (Modified Test)
Proctor Test Fresh Sample Remoulded Sample
MDD (kN/m3
) OMC (%) MDD (kN/m3
) OMC (%)
Fly ash (FA) 10.80 26.5 11.80 23.90
70%FA+30%S 12.50 25.0 13.80 21.00
65%FA+35%S 12.90 24.0 15.30 23.60
60%FA+40%S 13.50 24.2 15.80 24.00
55%FA+45%S 14.85 23.0 16.10 23.00
50%FA+50%S 13.20 24.0 13.80 22.00
10.8
12.5
12.9
13.5
14.85
13.2
15.74
19.44
25
37.5
22.22
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
FA
70%FA+30%S
65%FA+35%S
60%FA+40%S
55%FA+45%S
50%FA+50%S
MDD
Increase in MDD w.r.t. Plain Fly ash

_______________________________________________________________________________________
3.4 Effect of Preconditioning Period
The results of modified Proctor compaction tests on fly ash
and fly ash–waste sludge samples with preconditioning
period as 0 hr, 1 hr, 16 hr and 24 hr, are shown in Table-9
and Figs. 6 to 13. It has been observed from tests results that
the values of MDD are increasing (0 hr =10.80 and 16
hr=11.20 kN/m3
) whereas, the OMC values are also
increasing slightly with increase in preconditioning period
from 0-16 hours (0 hr =26.5 and 16 hr=27.5%) for all the
combinations of fly ash–waste sludge blend in general and
fly ash in particular. However, the percentage increase in the
value of MDD of fly ash–waste sludge blend for 16 hr of
preconditioning period with respect to 0 hr are 5.6% for
70%FA+30%S and 7.7%, 3.8%, 9.0% & 0.0% for
65%FA+35%S, 60%FA+40%S, 55%FA+45%S and
50%FA+40%S mixes respectively. The most significant mix
is found 55%FA+45%S. Whereas, the MDD value of mix
50%FA+50%S has not been increased significantly with
increase in preconditioning period. The finding indicates
that due to carbonation reaction, the mix 50%FA+50%S
becomes porous results in decrease in MDD values.
Therefore, this finding reveals that the delay caused due to
mixing and laying of the mix at site at least upto 16 hours
may not cause decrease in the density of the mix blend.
Table–9: Effect of Preconditioning Period on MDD and OMC of Fly ash and Fly ash-Waste Sludge Mix
S.
No.
Preconditioning
period
Fly ash (FA) 70%FA+30%S 65%FA+35%S 60%FA+40%S 55%FA+45%S 50%FA+50%S
MDD
(kN/m3
)
OMC
(%)
MDD
(kN/m3
)
OMC
(%)
MDD
(kN/m3
)
OMC
(%)
MDD
(kN/m3
)
OMC
(%)
MDD
(kN/m3
)
OMC
(%)
MDD
(kN/m3
)
OMC
(%)
Modified Proctor Test
1. 0 hr 10.80 26.50 12.50 25.00 12.90 24.00 13.50 24.20 14.85 23.00 13.20 24.00
2. 1 hr 12.25 27.10 12.78 25.30 13.20 25.80 13.40 25.20 14.20 25.00 13.50 24.20
3. 16 hr 11.20 27.50 13.20 25.00 13.90 25.20 14.02 25.42 16.20 25.60 13.20 24.50
4. 24 hr 10.80 27.00 11.25 24.90 13.20 29.10 13.50 25.50 13.58 23.10 12.02 25.90
Fig. 6: Compaction of Fresh Fly ash-Waste Sludge Mix (Modified Proctor Test–Preconditioning Period= 0 hr)
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
DryDensity(kN/m3)
FA 70%FA+30%S 65%FA+35%S 60%FA+40%S 55%FA+45%S 50%FA+50%S

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Fig. 7: Compaction of Fresh Fly ash-Waste Sludge Mix (Modified Proctor Test–Preconditioning Period = 1 hr)
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
DryDensity(kN/m3)
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
DryDensity(kN/m3)

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Fig. 10: Compaction of Remoulded Fly ash-Waste Sludge Mix (Modified Proctor Test–Preconditioning Period = 0 hr)
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
8 13 18 23 28 33 38
DryDensity(kN/m3)
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
8 14 20 26 32 38
DryDensity(kN/m3)

_______________________________________________________________________________________
9
11
13
15
17
19
8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
DryDensity(kN/m3)
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
8 14 20 26 32 38
DryDensity(kN/m3)

_______________________________________________________________________________________
4. CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of the results of the experimental investigation
and the discussions made in the earlier sections, the
following conclusions are drawn:
It has been observed that the increase in compaction effort
has resulted in 16.12% increase in MDD and 4% decrease in
OMC of fly ash by modified Proctor test with respect to
standard Proctor test.
Out of various combination of fly ash–waste sludge blend
the most significant mix was found to be 55%FA+45%S.
The MDD value of this mix has been observed as 14.85 and
16.20 kN/m3
at 0 and 16 hour preconditioning periods
respectively.
The percent increase in MDD values of the mix
55%FA+45%S has been observed as 37.5% as compared to
plain fly ash.
The use of remoulded sample increases the value of MDD
and decreases the value of OMC for fly ash and fly ash–
waste sludge blend.
Preconditioning period is found to have influence on the
MDD values of fly ash and fly ash–waste sludge. Therefore,
a period equivalent to the expected time interval between
wetting and compaction in the field may be adopted as
preconditioning period for all types of fly ash and fly ash–
waste sludge mix in the laboratory.
In order to achieve good quality structural fills, modified
Proctor MDD may be adopted as a benchmark value.
The mix blend containing fly ash between 55%–65% and
waste sludge blend between 35%–45% gives good results
and may be adopted for geotechnical applications.
REFERENCES
[1] Roy, T. K., Chattopadhyay, B. C. and Roy, S. K.
(2009). “Effect of lime on the properties of subgrade
of roads with addition of rice husk ash.” Indian
Geotechnical Conference, India, 175-177.
[2] Weng, C. H., and Huang, C. P. (1994). “Treatment
of metal industrial waste water by fly ash and
cement fixation.” Journal of Environmental
Engineering, 120 (6), 1470–1487.
[3] Parsa, J., Stuart, H., McGee, M., and Steiner, R.
(1996). “Stabilization/Solidification of hazardous
wastes using fly ash.” Journal of Environmental
Engineering, 122(10), 935–939.
[4] Sophia, C. A. and Swaminathan, K. (2005).
“Assessment of the mechanical stability and
chemical leachability of immobilized electroplating
waste.” Chemosphere, 58, 75–82.
[5] T¨urkel, S. (2006). “Long-term compressive strength
and some other properties of controlled low strength
materials made with pozzolanic cement and Class C
fly ash.” Journal of Hazardous Materials, B 137,
261–266.
[6] Ahmad, M. S. and Shah, S. S. (2010). “Load bearing
strength of fly ash modified with cement and waste
sludge.” International Journal of Civil Engineering
(IJCE), 8(4), 315-326.
[7] Yahya Hamzeh, A Kamran Pourhooshyar Ziabari A,
Javad Torkaman B, Alireza Ashori C, Mohammad
Jafari (2013). “Study on the effects of white rice
husk ash and fibrous materials additions on some
properties of fiber–cement composites.” Journal of
Environmental Management, 117, 263–267.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
8 14 20 26 32 38
DryDensity(kN/m3)

_______________________________________________________________________________________
[8] Saeid. Amiralian, Amin. Chegenizadeh, and Hamid.
Nikraz (2012). “Laboratory Investigation on the
Compaction Properties of Lime and Fly Ash
Composite.” International Conference on Civil and
Architectural applications (ICCAA'2012) December
18-19, 2012 Phuket (Thailand).
[9] Shah, S. S., and Ahmad, M. S. (2008). “Stabilization
of heavy metal containing waste using fly ash and
cement.” Indian Geotechnical Journal, 38(1), 89–
100.
[10] Clark, B. G., and Coombs, R. (1996). “Specifying
and using pulverized fuel ash as an engineered fill.”
Waste Management, 16(1–3), 101–108.
[11] Singh, B and Goswami, R. (2012). "Compaction
characteristics of lateritic soil mixed with fly ash and
lime." International Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering., 6:4, 437-444.
[12] Kampala, A, Horpibulsuk, S, Chinkullijniwat, A.
and Shen, S. (2013). "Engineering properties of
recycled calcium carbide residue stabilized clay as
fill and pavement materials."Construction and
Building Materials (ASCE) 46, 203-210.
[13] Mohamedzein, Y and Al-Aghbari, M. (2012). "The
Use of Municipal Solid Waste Incinerator Ash to
Stabilize Dune Sands." Geotechnical and Geological
Engineering (ASCE). 30:6, 1335-1344.
[14] Behera, B and Mishra, M. (2012). "Strength
behaviour of surface coal mine overburden–fly ash
mixes stabilised with quick lime."International
Journal of Mining, Reclamation and
Environment(ASCE). 26:1, 38-54.
[15] Nilo Cesar Consoli, Amanda Dalla Rosa, and
Rodrigo Beck Saldanha (2011). "Variables
governing strength of compacted soil–fly ash–lime
mixtures." Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering
(ASCE). 23:4, 432-440.
[16] Bera, A. K., Ghosh, A. and Ghosh, A. (2007).
“Compaction characteristics of pond ash.” Journal of
Materials in Civil Engineering, 19(4), 349–357.
[17] Kaniraj, S. R. and Havanagi, V. G. (2001).
“Correlation analysis of laboratory compaction of
fly ashes.” Practice Periodical of Hazardous, Toxic,
and Radioactive Waste Management, 5(1), 25–32.
[18] Ghosh, A., and Subbarao, C. (2007). “Strength
characteristics of Class F fly ash modified with lime
and gypsum.” Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 133(7), 757–766.
[19] Leonards, G. A. and Bailey, B. (1982). “Pulverized
coal ash as structural fill.” Journal of Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Division, 108, 517–531.
[20] Ramasamy, G., and Pusadkar, S. S. (2004).
“Behaviour of compacted coal ash in structural
fills.” First CUSAT National Conference on Recent
Advances in Civil Engineering, 226–233.
[21] IS: 2720 Part-8 (1983). “Methods of test for soils:
part 8 determination of water content dry density
relation using heavy compaction.” BIS, New Delhi.
[22] ASTM D 1557 (2000). “Standard test methods for
laboratory compaction characteristics of soil using
modified effort.” Philadelphia, U.S.A.
[23] IS: 2720 Part-7 (1987). “Methods of test for soils:
part 7 determination of water content dry density
relation using light compaction.” BIS, New Delhi.
[24] ASTM D 698 (2000a). “Standard test methods for
laboratory compaction characteristics of soil using
standard effort.” Philadelphia, U.S.A.
[25] Toth, P. S., Chan, H. T., and Cragg, C. B. (1988).
“Coal ash as structural fill with special reference to
Ontario experience.” Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, 25, 694–704.
[26] Martin, J. P., Collins, R. A., Browning, J. S., and
Biehl, F. J. (1990). “Properties and use of fly ashes
for embankments.” Journal of Energy Engineering,
116 (2), 71–86.
[27] Santayana, F. P., and Mazo, C. O. (1994).
“Behaviour of fly ash in experimental
embankment.” XII International Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, New Delhi,
1603–1606.

Laboratory compaction study of fly ash mixed with lime precipitated electroplating waste sludge

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (16)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (12)

Similar to Laboratory compaction study of fly ash mixed with lime precipitated electroplating waste sludge

Similar to Laboratory compaction study of fly ash mixed with lime precipitated electroplating waste sludge (20)

More from eSAT Journals

More from eSAT Journals (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Laboratory compaction study of fly ash mixed with lime precipitated electroplating waste sludge